Monitoring the Diversity of the Poverty Outreach and Impact of Microfinance: A Comparison of Methods Using Data from Peru

By J. Copestake, Peter Dawson, J. P. Fanning, A. McKay, K. Wright-Revolledo. 2005

161 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Many microfinance institutions claim to be oriented to a double bottom line, but while methods of financial performance assessment are widely agreed the same cannot be said about social performance. Monitoring social performance is most useful when it reveals variation in both outreach and impact over time and between clients. Data from a village banking programme in Peru is used to compare two methods for assessing each. On poverty outreach, we favour monitoring of proxy indicators for clients against national household survey data, and on impact we recommend making more use of individual in-depth interviews.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management Information Systems, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/14886e3fa520f4a63b24185235d94b61dde02bcc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management Information Systems

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

Systematic Review. What is the evidence of the impact of microfinance on the well-being of poor people? (2011, background): “Numerous studies have assessed the impact of microfinance in different countries (e.g. Copestake et al. 2005, Copestake 2002).”
THE EMPIRICS OF MICROFINANCE: WHAT DO WE KNOW? (2007, unknown): “Hulme and Mosley (1996) and Copestake et al. (2005) .”
Overcoming Selection Bias in Microcredit Impact Assessments: A Case Study in Peru (2008, background): “Copestake et al. (2005) have a sample of 547 clients and 388 non-clients from two microfinance institutions in Peru.”